Woman can harvest dead boyfriend's sperm, judge says

[Anguille]

Associated Press

NEW YORK -- A New York judge has given a woman permission to harvest her dead lover's sperm so she can still have his baby.

Johnny Quintana was only 31 when he died Thursday of an apparent heart attack.

He had wanted to have a second child with his fiancee, Gisela Marrero, but the only way to make it happen was to quickly collect his sperm, which stays fresh for only 36 hours after death.

A court order was needed because Quintana and Marrero were not yet married.

The Bronx judge said "yes" Friday with only four hours left until the deadline.

Sperm bank staffers then rushed to Jacobi Medical Center, where Quintana's body lay.

Marrero already has a 2-year-old son with Quintana.

HeraldNet: Woman can harvest dead boyfriend's sperm, judge says

I am outraged. This is not even a wife, so what right does she have to his sperm? In one fell swoop this radical judge's decision will set off a chain of reactions including a child being born into a most bizarre situation without a father and thus increasing substantially the chances that he/she would be at some point be involved with the penitentiary system.

"Various studies come up with slightly different numbers, but all the figures are grim. According to the Index of Leading Cultural Indicators, children from single-parent families account for 63 percent of all youth suicides, 70 percent of all teenage pregancies, 71 percent of all adolescent chemical/substance abuse, 80 percent of all prison inmates, and 90 percent of all homeless and runaway children." Ann Coulter, Guilty p 37-38.

Not to mention who will be financially responsible for these children born out of wedlock? It is no big accomplishment to give birth to young, even animals can do that. The challenge is too raise them in the best way possible and that includes having a mother and a father. Why do people refuse to see into the future of the children of singleparent homes? You give children a fighting chance when you bring them up in intact families.

The counterculture won on this one. Sad. Sad, indeed.

Well, in all honesty, if the two of them had been intending to have another child together - and one assumes that she produced some sort of evidence to support that assertion to the court - then THAT is what right she has to his sperm: he wanted her to have it.

Yes, it sounds like it was his wish to have another child. She is fufilling his will. No pun ..

 

[AllieBaba]

It would be wrong if she was married to him, too.

There's just so much wrong with the engineering of children it boggles the mind.

After digging up Abe and stealing his sperm, I want to dig up what's left of James Dean and have one of his kids.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Associated Press

NEW YORK -- A New York judge has given a woman permission to harvest her dead lover's sperm so she can still have his baby.

Johnny Quintana was only 31 when he died Thursday of an apparent heart attack.

He had wanted to have a second child with his fiancee, Gisela Marrero, but the only way to make it happen was to quickly collect his sperm, which stays fresh for only 36 hours after death.

A court order was needed because Quintana and Marrero were not yet married.

The Bronx judge said "yes" Friday with only four hours left until the deadline.

Sperm bank staffers then rushed to Jacobi Medical Center, where Quintana's body lay.

Marrero already has a 2-year-old son with Quintana.

HeraldNet: Woman can harvest dead boyfriend's sperm, judge says

I am outraged. This is not even a wife, so what right does she have to his sperm? In one fell swoop this radical judge's decision will set off a chain of reactions including a child being born into a most bizarre situation without a father and thus increasing substantially the chances that he/she would be at some point be involved with the penitentiary system.

"Various studies come up with slightly different numbers, but all the figures are grim. According to the Index of Leading Cultural Indicators, children from single-parent families account for 63 percent of all youth suicides, 70 percent of all teenage pregancies, 71 percent of all adolescent chemical/substance abuse, 80 percent of all prison inmates, and 90 percent of all homeless and runaway children." Ann Coulter, Guilty p 37-38.

Not to mention who will be financially responsible for these children born out of wedlock? It is no big accomplishment to give birth to young, even animals can do that. The challenge is too raise them in the best way possible and that includes having a mother and a father. Why do people refuse to see into the future of the children of singleparent homes? You give children a fighting chance when you bring them up in intact families.

The counterculture won on this one. Sad. Sad, indeed.

Well, in all honesty, if the two of them had been intending to have another child together - and one assumes that she produced some sort of evidence to support that assertion to the court - then THAT is what right she has to his sperm: he wanted her to have it.

So you think that there might be a will along the lines of " I hereby leave my sperm..."

 

[AllieBaba]

There is no potential child yet.

And potential life has no rights. You might not like that. But it's fact.

Again, no one opposed the application. It wasn't the judge's place to insert his own religious beliefs ... assuming he would agree with you.

Wha???

What religious rights? Who, besides yourself, brought up religious rights?

This is a question of the best possible life for the child. You libs can't conceive (pun intended) of being deprived of whatever you wish, no matter the ramifications.

Jillie can't make any statement at all without her hatred shining through.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I am opposed to this woman having another child because more kids is not what this over populated planet needs at the moment, but to say she is wrong to do this because she was not married to the guy and because she's not married to anyone else at the moment is silly.

Without getting into the details of the argument, would you suggest that a child born and brought up in a single-mother household, as a generalization, has as good a chance of a happy and successful life as one born and brought up in a loving two parent household?

 

[Anguille]

This is a question of the best possible life for the child. You libs can't conceive (pun intended) of being deprived of whatever you wish, no matter the ramifications.

And what if the child grows up and finds herself in the same situation that her mother is in now and the best possible life for her, the child, requirs a judge's permission to use the sperm of her dead boyfriend to conceive a child? Would you allow that best possible life to her, but not to her mother?

 

[Dis]

It's not like he's going to need them where he's at.. (Sorry)

Seriously tho.. They both apparently wanted another child, they already had one together, they were getting married... If he had died after she'd become pregnant the second time, he'd STILL be leaving a single parent behind (not like he didn't anyway with the first one).

What's the big deal? Usually I agree with a lot of what you say, PC, but I think you're loopy on this one.

Hypothetical question: say you are in charge of adoptions, and this single mother comes to you and says that her boyfried tragically passed away, and they had a child between them, but had always talked of having another.

Do you assign them one of the children for whom you have responsibility?

Are there questions you would be compelled to ask, that are not being considered here?

"There is no basis, as far as I know, not to let them do this," he said. "Under this kind of tragic circumstances, this is all that is left for them."

"Thank you so much. Thank you!" Quintana's parents cried out and collapsed into each other's arms in tears.

Looks to me like that was her only boyfriend, HIS family agreed, and stated pretty much the same things that she did..

IOW, the entire family was in agreement.. It doesn't sound to me like she's going to be a single mom sucking off the teat of society as you'd like to make her sound.

While I'm sure *every* question hasn't been answered, it seems a pretty relevant one was - What did he want, and did his family see that through?

 

[Dis]

There is no potential child yet.

And potential life has no rights. You might not like that. But it's fact.

Again, no one opposed the application. It wasn't the judge's place to insert his own religious beliefs ... assuming he would agree with you.

Wha???

What religious rights? Who, besides yourself, brought up religious rights?

This is a question of the best possible life for the child. You libs can't conceive (pun intended) of being deprived of whatever you wish, no matter the ramifications.

Where does "you libs" fit into this discussion? I'm not a lib, and *I* disagree with you wholeheartedly. Nowhere in either article that *I* read does it say the judge was a lib, or that either of the two families were libs.

So why are you pulling that card out as tho it has some major standing in this discussion?

 

[Anguille]

I am opposed to this woman having another child because more kids is not what this over populated planet needs at the moment, but to say she is wrong to do this because she was not married to the guy and because she's not married to anyone else at the moment is silly.

Without getting into the details of the argument, would you suggest that a child born and brought up in a single-mother household, as a generalization, has as good a chance of a happy and successful life as one born and brought up in a loving two parent household?

Yes. There are many more factors other than their mother's marital status that affect a person's chances for living a good life.

 

[Cecilie1200]

HeraldNet: Woman can harvest dead boyfriend's sperm, judge says

I am outraged. This is not even a wife, so what right does she have to his sperm? In one fell swoop this radical judge's decision will set off a chain of reactions including a child being born into a most bizarre situation without a father and thus increasing substantially the chances that he/she would be at some point be involved with the penitentiary system.

"Various studies come up with slightly different numbers, but all the figures are grim. According to the Index of Leading Cultural Indicators, children from single-parent families account for 63 percent of all youth suicides, 70 percent of all teenage pregancies, 71 percent of all adolescent chemical/substance abuse, 80 percent of all prison inmates, and 90 percent of all homeless and runaway children." Ann Coulter, Guilty p 37-38.

Not to mention who will be financially responsible for these children born out of wedlock? It is no big accomplishment to give birth to young, even animals can do that. The challenge is too raise them in the best way possible and that includes having a mother and a father. Why do people refuse to see into the future of the children of singleparent homes? You give children a fighting chance when you bring them up in intact families.

The counterculture won on this one. Sad. Sad, indeed.

Well, in all honesty, if the two of them had been intending to have another child together - and one assumes that she produced some sort of evidence to support that assertion to the court - then THAT is what right she has to his sperm: he wanted her to have it.

So you think that there might be a will along the lines of " I hereby leave my sperm..."

That actually happens, as a matter of fact, albeit rarely. With the advent of in vitro technology, a new branch of law came about covering the production of children in the event of sudden death. Women store their eggs, men store their sperm, and yes, people leave wills directing the harvesting of both.

In this case, since I don't think he expected anything to happen to him, there probably wasn't any such legal document. The story would have mentioned it, I assume. However, it DOES say that he and his girlfriend had a child and had intended to have another before he suddenly died. I would guess that since they state that as a fact, it was probably a factor in the judge's decision, which would mean they likely offered some sort of evidence to support it, if just statements from a number of people that that had been the man's intention prior to dying.

 

[jillian]

Sherman said he was not aware of any cases like this one in New York. "There is very little precedent," the judge said after the 10-minute hearing.

Nevertheless, Sherman ruled in favor of the family.

"There is no basis, as far as I know, not to let them do this," he said. "Under this kind of tragic circumstances, this is all that is left for them."

With no precedent, the judge should have shown a sense of responsibility for the future progeny, far more inportant than the "wishes" of the prospective mother.

There is "little precedent" on most issues because there are few disputes and few published opinions on the issue. That is true of most issues. It doesn't mean a judge can't act.

No.. the judge's responsibility... and his sole responsibility were to the LIVING movants before him.

Again, this was done on default. There was no appropriate basis for the judge to ruin the family's chance to harvest the sperm.

 

[Neser Boha]

There is no potential child yet.

And potential life has no rights. You might not like that. But it's fact.

Again, no one opposed the application. It wasn't the judge's place to insert his own religious beliefs ... assuming he would agree with you.

Wha???

What religious rights? Who, besides yourself, brought up religious rights?

This is a question of the best possible life for the child. You libs can't conceive (pun intended) of being deprived of whatever you wish, no matter the ramifications.

You truly HATE liberals, don't you... especially for 'getting whatever they want whenever they want it, no matter the ramifications'... hmm... some personal issues maybe?

 

[jillian]

There is no potential child yet.

And potential life has no rights. You might not like that. But it's fact.

Again, no one opposed the application. It wasn't the judge's place to insert his own religious beliefs ... assuming he would agree with you.

Wha???

What religious rights? Who, besides yourself, brought up religious rights?

This is a question of the best possible life for the child. You libs can't conceive (pun intended) of being deprived of whatever you wish, no matter the ramifications.

Where does "you libs" fit into this discussion? I'm not a lib, and *I* disagree with you wholeheartedly. Nowhere in either article that *I* read does it say the judge was a lib, or that either of the two families were libs.

So why are you pulling that card out as tho it has some major standing in this discussion?

Dis, I so wish I could rep you again for that.. because it's dead on.

And in answer to PC's question... the only basis on which the judge would presume that any life existed which was to be protected was if his RELIGIOUS beliefs dictated there was.

Most people, if they didn't apply a religious test, would ask ... "what is the intent of the deceased"? that would be derived either by his written instructions or the sworn or spoken statements of the family to the judge. The hospital didn't oppose the application. The family members didn't oppose the application. Would you have had the judge appoint a guardian ad litem for a life that doesn't exist and, thereby, delay the proceedings so the sperm was no longer salvageable... causing irreparable harm to the family and leaving them without any recourse?

and as Dis pointed out, this isn't about "libs"...it's about you wanting an activist judge to advance some agenda you have without legal basis to do so... the very thing you accuse libs of in the opening post... before you even knew the facts.

So, if it isn't about not wanting judicial activism...

and it isn't about religion, I'm not sure what bothers you about this other than that she's going to be a single mother.

Do you think single women who get pregnant should have abortions?

No... I know you don't.

They seem to be a loving, grieving family who lost a beloved 31 year old man and want to effectuate his wishes.

So what's the objection?

 

[AllieBaba]

I think I should be able to rent a female convict, force her to be impregnated with the sperm of the dead man of my choosing, and then have her baby delivered c-section (hey, it's just a fetus, so no harm no foul) and brought to me in my home.

 

[Dis]

I think I should be able to rent a female convict, force her to be impregnated with the sperm of the dead man of my choosing, and then have her baby delivered c-section (hey, it's just a fetus, so no harm no foul) and brought to me in my home.

Can you ever just stick to the conversation, or do you have to continually go off the deep end about something that has no relevance whatsoever, and just sounds utterly ridiculous?

 

[cbi0090]

If your fathered by a dead guy does that make you a Zombie or something!? Cool! but creepy!

 

[Article 15]

I think I should be able to rent a female convict, force her to be impregnated with the sperm of the dead man of my choosing, and then have her baby delivered c-section (hey, it's just a fetus, so no harm no foul) and brought to me in my home.

This is one of the dumbest posts I've ever read.

Thank you for giving the board further insight to exactly how retarded you actually are.

 

[AllieBaba]

I think I should be able to rent a female convict, force her to be impregnated with the sperm of the dead man of my choosing, and then have her baby delivered c-section (hey, it's just a fetus, so no harm no foul) and brought to me in my home.

Can you ever just stick to the conversation, or do you have to continually go off the deep end about something that has no relevance whatsoever, and just sounds utterly ridiculous?

It's what we're talking about. It's a shame you're too narrow minded to see it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sherman said he was not aware of any cases like this one in New York. "There is very little precedent," the judge said after the 10-minute hearing.

Nevertheless, Sherman ruled in favor of the family.

"There is no basis, as far as I know, not to let them do this," he said. "Under this kind of tragic circumstances, this is all that is left for them."

With no precedent, the judge should have shown a sense of responsibility for the future progeny, far more inportant than the "wishes" of the prospective mother.

There is "little precedent" on most issues because there are few disputes and few published opinions on the issue. That is true of most issues. It doesn't mean a judge can't act.

No.. the judge's responsibility... and his sole responsibility were to the LIVING movants before him.

Again, this was done on default. There was no appropriate basis for the judge to ruin the family's chance to harvest the sperm.

No, experience requires me to disagree.

How many times have we seen activist judges actually infract statutes and even the Constitutuion?

And here is acually a good reason to deny an applicant, especially when admitting that there is no precedent to refute.

 

[Dis]

I think I should be able to rent a female convict, force her to be impregnated with the sperm of the dead man of my choosing, and then have her baby delivered c-section (hey, it's just a fetus, so no harm no foul) and brought to me in my home.

Can you ever just stick to the conversation, or do you have to continually go off the deep end about something that has no relevance whatsoever, and just sounds utterly ridiculous?

It's what we're talking about. It's a shame you're too narrow minded to see it.

It has NOTHING to do with what we're talking about, and you're too narrow-minded and selfish to see THAT.

This is about a couple that loved each other, were in the process of planning a WEDDING, they had a child together, they wanted another child together, both families knew and acknowledged that, and everyone was in agreement. Nobody went behind anyone elses back. Do you think for a second that if it weren't such a unanimous decision on everyones part, a judge would have allowed such a thing to take place?

You only see what you want to see, which doesn't have anything to do with actual events.